Acts 15

1,846 Views | 38 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by agie95
agie95
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

A friend of mine dug a little bit into Acts 15 and the 4 things or is it 5 things...that are for those turning towards God. A really interesting piece:

Maybe its just me, but I have always found it to be odd that the counsel in Acts 15 only gave the gentiles four requirements. Why only four? That seems like an odd number, doesn't it? Not only that, but these four requirements also seem random. Why not give them the 10 commandments? Why not tell them the two most important of all? (Love the Lord your God... Love your neighbor as yourself)? Yet there is no mention of any of that. Seems rather odd.
In the past, I had spent some time looking into this, and discovered that these four requirements are all centered around pagan idolatry.
[ol]
  • Abstain from things (foods) polluted by idols: This is clearly centered around idol worship. Eating things that have been sacrificed to idols.
  • Abstain from fornication: Fornication (any and all forms of sexual immorality) were practiced during idol worship. Men had sex with temple prostitutes, and different forms of fornication played a role in worship of idols.
  • From things strangled: This would be referring to an animal that had been killed in such a way that the blood was not drained. The animal could have died of itself, or another animal could have killed it.
  • From blood: This would be speaking of those who drink blood. This was also a practice that was done during the worship of idols.

  • [/ol]So it should be obvious by now that these four things were given to these new converting gentiles, because idol worship was what they were coming out of, and those were things that were necessary to give up right away. There is no way that those gentiles were gonna be allowed to be a part of Gods people while drinking blood, fornicating, and eating things they shouldn't. They were defiled and unclean, and I cannot see them being allowed into a synagogue to learn while openly doing that.

    These four requirements make better sense now. But I felt like there was more I was missing. Yes, these four things are connected to idol worship, but it says in verse 28 that this decision was pleasing to the Spirit. Why would four random requirements (or commandments) be pleasing to the Spirit?

    Acts 15:28 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;"

    I took some more time, and studied further into this matter, and I would like to share my findings, and thoughts.

    The stranger

    Most of the time, whenever I start studying a topic, I will find myself venturing off down different rabbit trails. You study a topic and quickly find issues that cause you to divert off to another topic, trying to find answers. Once you do, you can make your way back to the original topic, only to find yourself off on another rabbit trail. This is exactly what happened here, so bear with me as we go through this.

    The first thing I did, was to look up all the places in the law that say not to drink blood, fornicate, eat things strangled, and things polluted by idols.

    Fornication
    As I had mentioned in a previous note, "fornication" is basically a large circle that encompasses all sexual immorality. In the law, these things can be found in Leviticus 18. Rather than copy the entire chapter here, I would highly recommend that you read that entire chapter for yourself. Its goes over a very wide variety of sexual sin.

    The important thing to note about Lev 18, is found in verse 26:

    "You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:"
    Pay close attention to, "stranger". Notice that these laws of sexual immorality are not only for the children of Israel, but also for the stranger.

    ** I would also like to point out that chapter 20 also covers some of this as well.**

    Blood

    Drinking blood, or I should say, the commandment against drinking blood, is found in Leviticus 17.

    "Leviticus 17:10 "And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood; I will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people."

    And again in verse 12

    Lev 17:12 "Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood."

    Once again, we see that the stranger is mentioned here.

    Foods polluted by idols
    Now this one is a little tricky. We have to read a few verses here, and put them together to see the bigger picture.

    Leviticus 17:3,4 "What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it out of the camp, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people: To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices, which they offer in the open field, even that they may bring them unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, unto the priest, and offer them for peace offerings unto the LORD."

    God says that they were sacrificing out in the open fields, out of the camp, and this was not what they were suppose to be doing. He wanted them to bring their sacrifices unto the door of the tabernacle. Why exactly were they sacrificing out in the open fields? That just seems really odd. The answer is in verse 7.

    Leviticus 17:7 "And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring. This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations."

    Ah! So that's why they were doing it. They were sacrificing out in the fields, outside of the camp, to devils! Now some of you might already be seeing the obvious here. At the beginning of verse 3, it says, "what man soever of the house of Israel". There is no mention of the stranger here, but don't worry! We have to keep reading!
    Leviticus 17:8,9 "And thou shalt say unto them, Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers which sojourn among you, that offereth a burnt offering or sacrifice, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer it unto the LORD; even that man shall be cut off from among his people."

    Did you catch that? Whether it be a man of the house of Israel, or a stranger, and they do not bring their sacrifice to the door of the tabernacle, they shall be cut off. Now why would it say they are offering a sacrifice, but not bringing it to the door of the tabernacle? The answer is simple. Because they're out in the field sacrificing it to devils! They are offering sacrifices, but not at the door of the tabernacle. Where else would they be offering it at? In a field, to devils! And this definitely includes the stranger. This is where "food polluted by idols" comes into play.

    The very next verse jumps right into the subject of eating blood, and right after that, it talks about eating things strangled, or died of itself. Why is this important? Consider the context! He just told them not to sacrifice to devils out in the field, right? What exactly do you think they were doing while sacrificing to devils? Were they having a cold drink and eating burgers while sitting by a fire? No! They were eating blood, and eating the meat that they had just sacrificed to devils. Why else would these things be spoken of back to back? It would be the modern day equivalent of saying, "Don't sacrifice to devils out in the field, and if I catch anyone drinking blood and eating meat that you have sacrificed to a devil, you're gonna get your butt kicked!"

    Yeshua also spoke of this in Revelation:

    Revelation 2:14 "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."

    Revelation 2:20 "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

    Clearly He is against it, and against those who cause others to do it.

    Things strangled

    Now this is where we suddenly get a curve ball thrown at us, and we end up going down a rabbit trail. This law is found in Leviticus 17 as well.

    Leviticus 17:15,16 "And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall both wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even: then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity."

    Here we have the laws about not eating anything that has died of itself, or torn by another animal. In other words, the blood has not been drained, and the animal was not killed the correct way. Notice that is does include the stranger.

    Now if you're like me, you probably like to check other places where the same laws are mentioned. Sometimes they are repeated, and its always good to check to see if there is any variation in how the commandment is spoken. Sometimes it might be vague in one place, but then have more detail with it in another. Sure enough, this law is found again in Deuteronomy.

    Deut 14:21 "You shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk."

    Uh oh! Now we get what appears to be a contradiction. We saw earlier in Lev 17 that the stranger could not eat anything strangled, but now it says the stranger can eat it. Why the change? Remember that Deuteronomy was 40 years later, so what happened in that 40 year span, that now the stranger can eat it?
    The problem here is not a contradiction, nor a change of the law, but rather, it is our English Bibles making things misleading and confusing. The word "stranger" is found many times all throughout the law, and for many people, especially those within the Christian world, when they read through the law, and see "stranger", they tend to think its always referring to the same type of person. But this is not correct. To be honest, its a poor job on the translators, because they chose one word, and used it as a one size fits all translation.

    Lately, I've been using the LXX (Septuagint) in my studies to check and see how things are worded compared to the Hebrew. So I decided to use it first, and check these places where the word stranger is used to see what it might say. Would you like to take a guess at what it says?

    In the verses we went over in Lev chapter's 17 and 18, every time we see the word stranger being mentioned, its the word, - proselyte. I think we all know what a proselyte is. Simply put, a proselyte is an individual that is converting. A gentile converts over to the faith, and therefore he/she is a proselyte. Whats important about this word, is that it implies faithfulness and commitment. This is not someone that's just visiting, or hanging around to see the show, and then leaves. This is someone who is now part of Gods people. They are being taught.

    So in Lev 17, God says that the stranger - - proselyte - is not to eat anything that died of itself, or strangled, and if we compare this to Deut 14:21, where God says that the stranger can eat it, the word for stranger is - paroike . It refers to a person that is an alien, or stranger, in the sense of perhaps visiting, or not part of the native people. This person may be residing there, but is not part of Gods people. It does not refer to someone that is a proselyte. These two "strangers" are not the same type of people. But the English word "stranger" is used here on both occasions, and causes confusion.

    So now the contradiction seems to be solved. One is a proselyte, and the other is a unnaturalized sojourner. After seeing this, I immediately thought of Exodus 12, with all the Passover instructions, and how it talked about the stranger not eating it. This was something I had studied before, but could never come to a solid conclusion on who this stranger was.

    Exodus 12:43 "And the LORD said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the Passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:"

    No stranger can eat it? I wonder what the LXX says.
    - allogens - one of another nation or race
    The Hebrew says: nekar - h5236

    No one of another race or nation can eat the Passover. So once again, we see our English Bible getting in the way and causing some confusion. But lets keep going, because there is more.
    Exodus 12:45 "A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof."

    A foreigner? The LXX uses:
    - an unnaturalized sojourner, or temporary dweller. Its the same type of person (same word) spoken of in Deut 14:21 with the stranger that could eat the strangled meat. This same stranger that could eat the strangled meat, cannot eat the Passover.

    The Hebrew uses, toshab - h8453 - someone that is not a native citizen - a foreigner
    Exodus 12:48 "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof."

    Would you like to take a guess at what word is used here for stranger? If you said - proselyte, then you would be right. The proselyte can eat the Passover.

    Exodus 12:49 "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you."
    Again, one law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth - - proselyte

    Do you see a pattern forming here? It appears to be making a distinction between a person who is a convert (proselyte) that is part of Gods people, and someone that is a stranger, and not part of the Gods people. The issue here seems to be the use of the English word stranger. This also happens in regard to the Sabbath.
    In Exodus, there are two places that talk about the Sabbath.

    Exodus 20:10 "But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:"

    Exodus 23:12 "Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed."
    These two verses also mention the stranger. If you think - proselyte, is used, then you are correct again. So not only are converting gentiles suppose to obey those four requirements, but the Sabbath is also a commandment for the proselyte.

    So now that we've gone down this rabbit trail, its time to climb out and get back on topic, but before we do, you might be wondering why I have not mentioned many Hebrew words here.
    In Hebrew, the word for stranger, is ger - h1616.

    In the Hebrew Masoretic text, it occurs 93 times. In our KJV Bibles, the Hebrew ger is translated as stranger 87 times. Proselyte - - 4339 is the corresponding noun in the LXX (it occurs 80 times), and is seen in the Greek NT four times. From what I can tell, the LXX seems to give a clearer meaning since it uses - proselyte, compared to the Masoretic text ger - stranger. Out of the 93 Masoretic text occurrences of ger h1616, the LXX translates it eleven times as 3941, sojourner, instead of proselyte 4339. The Hebrew word that would correspond to the Greek 3941, would be toshab h8453. It occurs 27 times in the Masoretic text.

    I could go on with a few other words, but then this note would become very lengthy, and I wanted to keep it as short as possible while trying to stay on track. If you want to know more about this, I highly recommend searching for, ger, toshab, nokree, nekar, and zoor. Just those words alone could make up a very lengthy note.

    Okay, so now back to the main topic. These four requirements in Acts 15 are in perfect alignment with the law in regards to proselytes. After all, these new converting gentiles were now proselytes, and were being discipled, just as they were in ancient times. I believe this is why it was pleasing to the Spirit to render this decision. It was in agreement with the law, and there really isn't any way to argue out of it. Think about it for a moment. You're there in the 1st century, the counsel is trying to decide what to do with these newly converting gentiles. What better decision than to do what the law already says to do with proselytes! Its like a template that's already there. God gave instructions in the law concerning proselytes, and the counsel must have noticed it, and used it. The Spirit was pleased with this.

    Acts 15 enforces the idea that anyone converting to the faith, will be joined to Gods people, and when you become a member of the household of God, there are rules you must abide by. Most people read it and think that it says that gentiles only have to obey four requirements and that's it, but as we have seen, that is not the case. Converting gentiles (proselytes) also have to observe the Sabbath as well. You might be wondering, "Why didn't the counsel mention the Sabbath?" They did!

    Acts 15:21 "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."
    "For" is a preposition, and when used as a conjunction, (as seen here in verse 21) it can be translated as "seeing that", "since", or "because". So it should read as:

    "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. Seeing as how Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

    In other words, "We're only going to give you these four requirements, because we know the law is preached in the synagogues, every Sabbath, and we know you'll be there to hear it."

    They knew Moses (aka, the law) was preached every Sabbath in the synagogues, and these new proselytes would be attending to hear and learn.

    So, what have we learned in all of this?
    [ol]
  • The four requirements of Acts 15 were based on the law concerning proselytes. The counsel was just following what the law already said to do with them.
  • Gentiles who are converting are not commanded to just observe those four things and nothing else. They would eventually be learning more as they hear the law preached to them.
  • When dealing with Passover, only native born Israelite's and proselytes can eat it.
  • Our English Bibles can be a little misleading in situations like this. "Stranger" is used many times, but its not always talking about the same type of person.
  • When you're grilling burgers in the backyard, don't sacrifice to devils!
  • [/ol]
    Shalom
    Sapper Redux
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Martin Q. Blank
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Sadly the attention span of many so-called history professors today. Read the first couple sentences of a wikipedia article and they are experts on the subject.
    Sapper Redux
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Your trolls are getting more personally bitter. Lighten up. Take a break.
    Win At Life
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    One of the best posts I've seen here in quite some time. We need more thoughtful posts like this (mine not included
    ramblin_ag02
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Good analysis and research! Never thought to connect the Council of Jerusalem with the requirements for the non-Hebrews of the mixed multitude in the Torah. Certainly does make sense though.

    I'm always a little amused when people talk about the Council of Jerusalem defining all the expectations for new Christians in perpetuity. Because clearly abstaining from strangled animals is more important to Christianity than say murder.
    No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
    Solo Tetherball Champ
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Did you write that? The style seems a little different.
    Win At Life
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    A few comments and questions:

    Leviticus 17:15 says every sole (including the stranger - H1616) may eat what dies of itself, but this will just make them unclean until evening, while Deuteronomy 14:21 says YOU (presumably Hebrews) shall NOT eat anything that dies of itself, but give it to the stranger (H1616).

    First, the Hebrew word for stranger is H1616 in both Levi 17:15 and Deut 14:21. You note in the LXX these are different words proselyte and paroike, respectively. So, you are saying the Greek text written about 130BC is providing additional directions that were not present in the original Hebrew? I posed that as a question, but that seems to be beyond question, because that's the major premise of your post. Are you okay with that?

    Secondly, what about the contradiction this still poses for Hebrews? Leviticus 17:15 seems to indicate an allowance for even Hebrews to eat that which dies of itself in which they just become unclean until evening, but Deuteronomy 14:21 seem to prohibit this outright for Hebrews? How do you reconcile that?
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    "original Hebrew" is a nonstarter. There wasn't a streamlined or authorized text even into the first few centuries after Christ, even down to the canon.
    ramblin_ag02
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    You're correct if talking about the entire Hebrew and Aramaic Bible the comprises the Old Testament. The Torah he's referencing refers only to the first 5 books up to Deuteronomy, which are accurately preserved in their original Hebrew text according to both Jewish and Christian tradition.
    No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
    brownbrick
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Isn't Acts 15 where they determine that gentile converts don't need to be circumcised? When were they supposed to start being circumcised to keep that part of the law, and to partake in passover.... That guy may have gone off on a trail and never come back to his original passage.
    Sapper Redux
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    If this is true,
    Quote:

    In other words, "We're only going to give you these four requirements, because we know the law is preached in the synagogues, every Sabbath, and we know you'll be there to hear it."
    why would they have needed to even list the four requirements that they did list?
    tehmackdaddy
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Thanks for posting that.
    Aggiefan#1
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Good read. Thank you
    Solo Tetherball Champ
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    If this is true,
    Quote:

    Quote:
    In other words, "We're only going to give you these four requirements, because we know the law is preached in the synagogues, every Sabbath, and we know you'll be there to hear it."
    why would they have needed to even list the four requirements that they did list?
    As he pointed out, those four activities were very common to idol worship. I would imagine that if a gentile proselyte were known to be doing any of those four activities they would not be allowed to enter a synagogue and the rest of the Jews were to not associate with him either. Even in the Law Jews were instruct to "cut off from their people" Jews who were doing those same things.

    If I know anything about Agie94 and his theology, he read Acts 15 as instructing converts to "start by abstaining from these four activities, so you will be allowed to enter the synagogues/associate with other Jews and learn the rest of the Law of Moses as it has been traditionally taught on the sabbath". Gentile converts to christianity were essentially converting to Judaism since at this point in time Christians considered themselves to Jews and Romans considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism.





    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Hard to say that they were "essentially converting to judaism" when the sign of the covenant of Judaism was circumcision.

    I believe in a discussion specifically relating to the question of "how do we handle gentile converts to Christ" saying that they convert to Judaism is begging the question.

    One faction (Pharisees) wanted that, the other basically did not. "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.' The apostles and elders met to consider this question."

    The answer?

    "...we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."

    The demand: they must be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses

    The response: not burden you with anything beyond the following four requirements.
    Sapper Redux
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Solo Tetherball Champ said:

    Quote:

    If this is true,
    Quote:

    Quote:
    In other words, "We're only going to give you these four requirements, because we know the law is preached in the synagogues, every Sabbath, and we know you'll be there to hear it."
    why would they have needed to even list the four requirements that they did list?
    As he pointed out, those four activities were very common to idol worship. I would imagine that if a gentile proselyte were known to be doing any of those four activities they would not be allowed to enter a synagogue and the rest of the Jews were to not associate with him either. Even in the Law Jews were instruct to "cut off from their people" Jews who were doing those same things.

    If I know anything about Agie94 and his theology, he read Acts 15 as instructing converts to "start by abstaining from these four activities, so you will be allowed to enter the synagogues/associate with other Jews and learn the rest of the Law of Moses as it has been traditionally taught on the sabbath". Gentile converts to christianity were essentially converting to Judaism since at this point in time Christians considered themselves to Jews and Romans considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism.








    It seems from what I've read that Christian groups were already breaking into Hebrew and Greek coalitions. Greek Christians were not becoming Jews first. I guess I'm just curious why those four laws are more vital than the many others typically required before you could enter a synagogue or partake in the feasts. It seems more that removing yourself from Greek religious rituals would be important broadly to Christians rather than as a way to suddenly become more Jewish. It doesn't seem at all that Acts 15 is requiring Judaism before Christianity.
    Solo Tetherball Champ
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    I'm sure Agie or win at life could run that down for you, I was just answering from what I know of his theology
    Solo Tetherball Champ
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Hard to say that they were "essentially converting to judaism" when the sign of the covenant of Judaism was circumcision.

    I believe in a discussion specifically relating to the question of "how do we handle gentile converts to Christ" saying that they convert to Judaism is begging the question.

    One faction (Pharisees) wanted that, the other basically did not. "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.' The apostles and elders met to consider this question."

    The answer?

    "...we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell."

    The demand: they must be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses

    The response: not burden you with anything beyond the following four requirements.

    So we're not burdened by anything else? I can tell my parents to eff off, I can murder, etc? Obviously, there are more beyond those four, because any of us can read the epistles and find that there are additional commandments therein.

    I'm no messianic Jew, but I find Agie95s position that this was the starting point for new converts plausible.
    Zobel
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    You're exceeding the scope of the question.

    The demand was the converts need to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.

    The response was they need to follow these four commandments of the Law.

    We can conjecture beyond that, but then you're not appealing to Scripture any more.
    OceanStateAg
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    The question was whether or not new members of the Christian community, coming from gentile nations, would need to be circumcised and thus place them selves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law. The answer was a definitive no. Paul even extrapolated upon this in his letter, particularly Galatians, where placing oneself under the law enslaved one to the entire law, and in other letters where he compares those who are continuing the temple sacrifices with pagan sacrifices as both are to no avail in the new age that has arrived with Jesus Christ. I don't see how there is any way one can get the need to uphold the Mosaic law, in total, from the Jerusalem Council and the letters of Paul, who was a key player in the decision of the Council.
    agie95
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Not mine...hence I said a friend of mine
    Win At Life
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    OceanStateAg said:

    The question was whether or not new members of the Christian community, coming from gentile nations, would need to be circumcised and thus place them selves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law. The answer was a definitive no. Paul even extrapolated upon this in his letter, particularly Galatians, where placing oneself under the law enslaved one to the entire law, and in other letters where he compares those who are continuing the temple sacrifices with pagan sacrifices as both are to no avail in the new age that has arrived with Jesus Christ. I don't see how there is any way one can get the need to uphold the Mosaic law, in total, from the Jerusalem Council and the letters of Paul, who was a key player in the decision of the Council.
    Corrections:
    Quote:

    The question was whether or not new members of the Christian community, coming from gentile nations, would need to be circumcised and thus place them selves under the yoke of the Mosaic Law IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.

    Acts 15:1 "Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved."

    The answer is "they are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15:11).

    So, if the question was about salvation, and that question is answered in Acts 15:11, what is the purpose of Acts 15:12-21?

    Acts 15:19-20, is not what you should do to be saved, but what you should do in order to be considered safe letting you into the synagogue with other Believes to hear the rest of the Torah of Moses for the obvious purpose of keeping it.

    Why only four rules in order to be let into the synagogue (not to be saved)? Let's look at the life of a typical first century Roman gentile.

    1) Not a murderer because Roman civil law prohibited murdering other citizens.
    2) Not a thief, because Roman civil law prohibited stealing from other citizens.
    3) Not a constant liar in Roman courts because Romans don't like that.
    4) Did something for an honest living.
    5) Paid taxes
    6) Strangled meat and sacrificed them to Roman pagan god per Roman law.
    7) Visited Roman pagan temple prostitutes. Rom encouraged this as a form of worshiping their gods and they skimmed tax money from this.
    8) Ignored Jewish Sabbaths and participated in Roman pagan festival days.

    Of these things a typical Roman pagan gentile was doing and not doing before converting to this Jewish based religion centered inside Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath, you can see only the sacrificing meats to pagan idols and fornication with temple prostitutes were the things they regularly did that were very egregious against the Torah and basically violations of the 10 commandments.
    The short answer is follow at least the basic 10 commandments, and then those already in the synagogues will fill safe admitting you in with their families. Once inside the Jewish synagogues on the Sabbath, please learn the rest of the Torah of Moses for the obvious purpose of following it, Mr Gentile.
    Win At Life
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2aggie07 said:

    You're exceeding the scope of the question.

    The demand was the converts need to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses.

    The response was they need to follow these four commandments of the Law.

    We can conjecture beyond that, but then you're not appealing to Scripture any more.
    Correction:

    The demand was the converts need to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses, IN ORDER TO BE SAVED.(Acts 15:1). For the rest, see above.
    agie95
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    herewegoagain said:

    Isn't Acts 15 where they determine that gentile converts don't need to be circumcised? When were they supposed to start being circumcised to keep that part of the law, and to partake in passover.... That guy may have gone off on a trail and never come back to his original passage.
    They don't need to be circumcised to be saved (look at v1)...big difference between don't need circumcision ever and don't need circumcision to be saved.
    Win At Life
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2aggie07 said:

    Hard to say that they were "essentially converting to judaism" when the sign of the covenant of Judaism was circumcision.

    I believe in a discussion specifically relating to the question of "how do we handle gentile converts to Christ" saying that they convert to Judaism is begging the question.

    One faction (Pharisees) wanted that, the other basically did not. "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, 'The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.' The apostles and elders met to consider this question."
    The Pharisees were multiple factions of Pharisees. The two main groups in the first century were the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. Paul was a student of the House of Hillel under Hillel's grandson, Gamaliel. Hillel was the more accepting branch of Pharisees; more willing to let gentiles into the synagogues. Shammai was the hard-line sect demanding that gentiles go through the full proselyte process culminating with circumcision before they would let them in the synagogue.

    It's likely James was a student under the house of Shammai, which is why, when he makes his proclamation to let them in as indicated in Acts 15:20-21, the matter is settled, because Paul was already there (being a student of Hillel).

    Shalom
    swimmerbabe11
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    herewegoagain said:

    Isn't Acts 15 where they determine that gentile converts don't need to be circumcised? When were they supposed to start being circumcised to keep that part of the law, and to partake in passover.... That guy may have gone off on a trail and never come back to his original passage.


    I just want to point out that I read this posters username as "hebrewegoagain"

    At first I was like "oh, he'll probably know lots" and then I realized my mistake and laughed and laughed.
    agie95
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    k2aggie07 said:



    The demand: they must be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses

    The response: not burden you with anything beyond the following four requirements.
    Except the demand was for salvation. Big difference.

    Response...no other requirements? Really? How about love God and your neighbor? How about the list of items provided for in Revelation 2 & 3? If Acts 15 is everything, then how can Yeshua hold against them for holding to the teachings of the Nicolaitions? Or who tolerate Jezebel? Or to those who are dead and tells them to wake up? Or those who think they have everything, but really don't?

    It doesn't make sense in the least bit, that these 4 things (mind you they were to hear Moses each Shabbat so there is really 5) are everything. There is not even the call to "believe" in God or Yeshua.

    I have said for years that Acts 15 is all about the start. Stop your pagan ways if you are going to have any relations with us. Over time you will hear Moses read and will get the rest.
    agie95
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG
    Quote:



    It seems from what I've read that Christian groups were already breaking into Hebrew and Greek coalitions. Greek Christians were not becoming Jews first. I guess I'm just curious why those four laws are more vital than the many others typically required before you could enter a synagogue or partake in the feasts. It seems more that removing yourself from Greek religious rituals would be important broadly to Christians rather than as a way to suddenly become more Jewish. It doesn't seem at all that Acts 15 is requiring Judaism before Christianity.
    These 4 laws were more vital because they were things done in the pagan temples. If you were going to start converting to Judaism, you must remove yourself from these pagan practices. It is not requiring Judaism, it is requiring you to remove yourself from idolatry before you come and have relations with us.

    People forget the "new" covenant is made with the house of Israel and Judah. Not Gentiles. Gentiles can be grafted in and become sons of Abraham, but the covenant is not with them. This is a covenant with the Jewish people. Just like the multitude in the wilderness who were absorbed into Israel, it is the same today. Gentiles or better said, those who were formerly Gentiles, are grafted in. That is why in the Millennial Temple there are only 12 gates and those gates have the names of the 12 Tribes.
    booboo91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Solo Tetherball Champ said:

    Quote:

    I'm no messianic Jew, but I find Agie95s position that this was the starting point for new converts plausible.

    This topic makes me smile, because Agie95 is as stubborn as I am. But also because it is so clear cut from historical evidence side. This was St. Paul's issue, this was the first major issue of the Christian Faith- very well documented.

    1) Logically does not make sense- The Gentiles had previously become Jewish. This was not new. The process was already set- follow the entire Mosaic Law- 613laws . So why would Apostles need to make a change. Just followed what has already been done.

    2) This is Christian 101- Faith is what you need! This is what we believe today. It takes FAITH in Jesus! and that is what apostles (church teaches) and this is what was said in book of ACTS. Also today Christians do not follow the Mosaic law.

    If we want to believe Agie95- the book of Acts written roughly (65-80 AD) needs to be wrong or the Apostles (especially Paul) must of been wrong in their judgement and their comments on Judiaziers and from the early church fathers (180-300AD) must be wrong. Again to believe Agie95- This was not one minor mistake but a major mistake made by many many folks.

    3) Bible is pretty clear- Acts 15 5 But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law." (Note this is exactly what Agie95 says). The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter. After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."
    booboo91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Finally Authority matters. Jesus- Apostles and the church had authority. Agie95 church which was recently formed in year 2000 something? Unfortunately does not have authority and history on their side. As I see it, they are just making stuff up or are gravely misinformed.

    If you call yourself a Christian and believe in Jesus as your Savior then this matter is settled in 50AD. No ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law are required. listen to St. Paul and the Apostles- no circumcision.

    If you are Jewish (your group has authority, history) but you are still waiting on the Messiah.
    booboo91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Quote:

    Why not give them the 10 commandments? Why not tell them the two most important of all? (Love the Lord your God... Love your neighbor as yourself)? Yet there is no mention of any of that. Seems rather odd.
    Answer- Does not need to be clarified because Jesus in the Gospels is clear on the Law of Love,Jesus parables on how we are called to love others. Note: we can argue on when NT was written,oral tradition of apostles and disciples.

    I do think the (4) things that were mentioned were challenging issues the gentiles were experiencing. So apostles wanted to end these bad practices/habits.


    booboo91
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    agie95 said:


    Response...no other requirements? Really? How about love God and your neighbor? How about the list of items provided for in Revelation 2 & 3? If Acts 15 is everything, then how can Yeshua hold against them for holding to the teachings of the Nicolaitions? Or who tolerate Jezebel? Or to those who are dead and tells them to wake up? Or those who think they have everything, but really don't?
    Got to understand context, Acts 15 is very clear. this is not about everything a Christian should do but about about a specific question regarding the ceremonial practice in the Mosaic laws, it was one of 613 laws. "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved. It shows us the decision the early church made. Acts of Apostles is follow up to Gospel of Luke. So we read both Luke and Acts to see the complete story so we understand context. We know the teachings of Jesus.

    Quote:

    I have said for years that Acts 15 is all about the start. Stop your pagan ways if you are going to have any relations with us. Over time you will hear Moses read and will get the rest.

    Please show us evidence, where it says after Council of 50AD that the Gentiles Christians need to later follow All 613 laws of Mosaic law.- they need to eventually be physically circumcised- cutting of skin. Please provide NT quotes. Please show early church fathers comments. Logically OT quotes would not apply here, this is NT question.
    bamdvm
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    Good post Agie. Interestingly, these same things are referenced in Ezekiel 33 with regards to minimum requirements to live in/possess the land.
    agie95
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    AG

    The context of the passage is key. A ger can be one who is in the gates and has accepted to live in Israel with certain ways to live (basically the Noahide laws) or a ger can be one who has accepted (or at least thinking about it) the ways of the Jews and is a proselyte.

    Regarding the allowance, in reading Lev 17:15 you are looking at the consequence and saying no big deal....you become unclean. In Deuteronomy 14:21 it says you should not eat it. Both are saying you should not, but if you do you will become unclean.

    There are others actions which are prohibited and yet the consequence is you become unclean. Not every commandment has a severe penalty. We are not given a reason for the different consequence of one action over another. Generally their are different consequences for the positive commandments verses the negative commandments.
    Page 1 of 2
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.